TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds import permit requirement for Boric Acid despite Insecticide Act exemption</h1> <h3>M/s. Borax Manufacturers Association of India & Others (M/s. Agarwal Chemicals) Versus Commissioner of Customs(Port), Kolkata</h3> M/s. Borax Manufacturers Association of India & Others (M/s. Agarwal Chemicals) Versus Commissioner of Customs(Port), Kolkata - 2012 (275) E.L.T. 254 ... Issues:1. Intervention application by an association in an appeal.2. Requirement of import permit for Boric Acid under the Insecticide Act, 1968.3. Legality of the Notification issued under the Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act (FTA) regarding Boric Acid import.4. Authority of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (D.G.F.T.) to issue the Notification.5. Interpretation of the Notification's provisions in relation to the Insecticide Act, 1968.6. Confiscation and penalty imposed on Boric Acid importers for not having the required import permit.Analysis:1. The Tribunal considered a Miscellaneous Application by an association seeking to intervene in an appeal. The association aimed to make legal submissions supporting the Notification requiring import permits for Boric Acid. Despite opposition, the Tribunal allowed the intervention as the legal points raised were relevant and would be considered during the decision-making process.2. The Appellants argued that Boric Acid, exempt from the Insecticide Act, 1968, should not require an import permit under the Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act (FTA). They contended that imposing conditions under the FTA on an item exempt under another enactment would defeat the main enactment's purpose. The Tribunal noted the exemption under the Insecticide Act and the necessity of import permits for items covered by it.3. The Appellants challenged the legality of the Notification issued by D.G.F.T. under the FTA, arguing that it was ultra vires and contrary to the Insecticide Act, 1968. They relied on a Supreme Court decision but the Tribunal held that it couldn't question the vires of the Notification. The Tribunal found no merit in the argument that the Notification was contrary to the provisions of the Insecticide Act, emphasizing that both Acts were enacted by Parliament.4. The Tribunal addressed the authority of D.G.F.T. to issue the Notification under the FTA. The Tribunal found that the Notification was issued within the powers vested in the Central Government and signed by D.G.F.T., dismissing the argument that an Additional Secretary couldn't issue such a Notification. The Tribunal stated that challenges to such Notifications should be made before the High Court or Supreme Court, not a Tribunal.5. The Tribunal examined the provisions of the Notification in relation to the Insecticide Act, 1968. It clarified that the Notification did not restrict Boric Acid's exemption under the Act but imposed import restrictions under the FTA. The Tribunal emphasized that the FTA empowered D.G.F.T. to regulate imports and exports, and the conditions imposed were valid.6. Regarding the confiscation and penalty imposed on Boric Acid importers for not having the required import permit, the Tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision due to the Appellants' failure to produce the permit. While reducing the penalty, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of compliance with import regulations and upheld the confiscation of the goods.
TaxTMI 